Thread Subject: Re: todays question
Note
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Fri, Jan 12 2007 11:10 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Salaets, Ken: "Re: todays question"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: todays question"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I'll disagree!
The Section 508 technical standard shouldn't mandate the burden applies
to the vendor. The agency procuring should have language that covers
their business needs. I would expect the smart vendor would readily
agree to "pay for the alternate format" by structuring a fee or charge
for each event. I would expect vendors who plan might have absorbed this
cost to fund it elsewhere through their contracting agreement. I think
it certainly would harm small vendors who didn't contractually prepare
for such an event and damage our business relationship.
Certainly, it could be easier to "make" the vendors give us the
alternate when our agency didn't include the right contracting language,
but that is a bad approach in my opinion. We'd be better off stating
each agency must consider specific language identifying the requirement
for alternate formats. In a perfect world we'd all agree on what that
format was and included it in the refresh - be it HTML, DAISY, or
whatever format is appropriate in a perfect world.
Regards,
Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Thomas Brett
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:43 PM
To: TEITAC documentation and technical support subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-documentation] todays question
I agree that the standard should explicitly state that the
manufacturer pays for the alternate format.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dawn Wilcox <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:35 PM
Subject: [teitac-documentation] todays question
I interpret 1194.41 (a) to mean the manufacturer
provides it and pays for it. but we could make it more obvious by
adding - the manufacturer pays for and the agency requests alternate
formats. Dawn Wilcox CCLVI
- Next message in Thread: Salaets, Ken: "Re: todays question"
- Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: todays question"
WebAIM is an initiative of:
